Lucasfilm's Rick McCallum says DVD hurts box office returns. (1 Viewer)

[Jason Seaver]

and the only element left is asses in seats. Time has shown that simply telling a good story takes care of that part.

Respectfully, I don't think that's true. Telling a good story is good for long-term success, but that presumes the audience will be able to find the movie by the time word-of-mouth gets to them and they've found some free time. But can exhibitors wait the (say) four weeks needed to start reaping the benefits of a movie being good, especially if they don't have a whole lot of screens to play with?

 

[Alex Spindler]

I would suggest that the bigger culprit is that they have such a short window between the theatrical release and the DVD/video release. I mean, we're seeing DVD release information prior to the release of the film. And you fault people for not going to the theater?

At the risk of the bootleg market, which I believe to be devalued due to the increased quality of home video by way of DVD, why not have a one year gestation between the film release and the home video release. These days, early year theatrical releases that have Oscar aspirations don't have to have a theatrical rerelease because they will already be on video.

Additionally, and I really don't have any data on this so I could be wrong, I think there is oversaturation of films in the market. Either each studio is making more movies per year or there are many more studios, but I sense that there are tons of films out there. Because there is always something coming the next weekend, I don't feel as compelled to see the good movies a great many times. I used to double watch a ton of films, but now I only do that for those that are exceptional. It's just down to the fact that I can't watch over 100 films a year with my schedule, and they've been releasing 150 alone. I can't seem to find the time to rewatch them. Having less films out would also suggest choosing films that were more worthy and giving them time to find an audience.

So, in short, give me more reason to see the films in the theater by extending the time between theatrical and video releases and give me fewer (and hopefully higher quality) films to choose from so that I would want to rewatch them in theaters.

A little strange a take, I know, but I think it would be the right thing to do.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Most movies seem to be doing pretty well off their box office returns.

The Lord Of The Rings, for instance, cost $270 million to make. The first installment alone grossed over $800 million worldwide.

Spider-Man made $800 million worldwide, with a cost of $120 million.

Even AOTC made about six times what it cost.

What's the problem here?

 

[Jason Seaver]

Wouldn't you agree that one could intimate from the business decisions that while Jackson is sharing his vision, in all of its comprehensive glory, GL is primarily concerned about capitalizing on his vision?

You could draw that conclusion, but you'd have less evidence on your side than Joseph. All you can really infer is that Lucas's company is doing more merchandising, which isn't surprising considering LucasArts is 20 years older and more diversified than Wingnut and...

You know what? WHO CARES? What the heck does Peter Jackson potentially being a nicer guy who may care more about the fans than Lucas have to do with McCallum's belief that DVD is eating into box office takes and reducing repeat viewing in theaters? That's just reducing a complicated business question to a question of what we feel about them personally, and that leads nowhere useful. Especially considering that neither the Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings movies are typical productions, and attempting to predict or analyze broad industry trends based upon them will give a very skewed picture.

Tom,

Those aren't exactly "most movies"; they're large-budget entries in already-popular franchises that are being supported by massive marketing campaigns.

 

[Jim_C]

>>The entire trilogy of LOTR cost $150 million

 

[Peter Kim]

What's the problem here?

Couldn't have been better said. These movies are making money, and lots.

Indeed, the business model has changed, but to the advantage of the studios. Dvd sales, that which used to be considered icing on the cake, has made the cake double-layered.

Ultimately, if not already, studios will question a prospective film's feasibility not strictly on box office, but on the combination of B.O., dvd, and any other outlet.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Those aren't exactly "most movies"; they're large-budget entries in already-popular franchises that are being supported by massive marketing campaigns.

But they also cost a lot. Big box office returns are only really important to movies that cost a lot of money to make. The smaller films have smaller grosses, but they do just fine. It's with the bigger films that it's most a gamble, and those films seem to be doing just fine.

 

[Peter Kim]

Hollywood folk. Public face, private face? While I too would have been somewhat starstruck, his public persona has nothing to do with his recent tarnish as a filmmaker, on the business or creative end.

My argument is borne from the responses, evident by the dvd releases, by Jackson and Lucas. While Jackson seems to treat dvd as friend, GL appears to treat dvd as foe. And this article only reinforces the aspersions cast on dvd by GL & co. But I'm really not familar with why GL continues to protract the release of the original series.

Is it because Lucas is looking at yet another theatrical run of the original series? And any imminent dvd release would detract from the b.o.?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Wow. I just hope that Lucas and McCallum are able to squirrel away enough cash to provide for their families and get their kids through college before the film business goes belly-up. I had no idea things were so rough. I'd hate to see them living the rest of their lives in poverty.

Regards,

 

[RobertR]

Is it because Lucas is looking at yet another theatrical run of the original series? And any imminent dvd release would detract from the b.o.?

If only we DID get the "original series". Instead, the impression is that these ad nauseum revisions by Lucas are done so that he can perpetually market the films as being the latest, greatest version of his "original vision", thus getting fans to pony up over and over again (let's face it: aside from the SW franchise, Lucas doesn't have much going for him filmwise). This also explains why he doesn't want the original films on DVD. Why bother running to see version 2(d) when you're happy with the original, and have a nice digital copy of it in your hands?

 

[Brian Kaz]

Wouldn't you agree that one could intimate from the business decisions that while Jackson is sharing his vision, in all of its comprehensive glory, GL is primarily concerned about capitalizing on his vision?

For one, Jackson is working with a property which he did not create, and a movie he probably does not have full control of after the fact.

Lucas is about to give us a second SW DVD when he really wanted to wait until the prequels were done before doing so. It's been stated that the OT is coming after the prquels are done. How exactly is this capitalizing on his vision? Not only that, but he actually spent millions on creating finished SFX just for the deleted scenes of the current DVDs and will no doubt do it again for the third - Then again for the OT.

When the prequels are done, we will have a super-duper collector's special edition director's cut SW archive box set, with most likely everything imaginable packed into it. Just because the man is waiting doesn't mean he has no appreciation for his fans and he certainly isn't capatilizing on it. If that were the case we would have EVERY SW film right now in a bare bones non-anamorphic DVD version with surround, another with 5.1, an anamorphic version, another with the original cuts, a special edition, a special-special edition, etc...etc.

This is the first time I've heard someone labeled "Greedy" for NOT putting out DVDs to make money.

 

[Jason Seaver]

My argument is borne from the responses, evident by the dvd releases, by Jackson and Lucas. While Jackson seems to treat dvd as friend, GL appears to treat dvd as foe.

Really? I figure they both are treating them as revenue streams. Both produce DVD packages that are very impressive. Lucas waits until the market has matured to release his movies; Jackson & New Line require a double-dip to get everything.

 

[Ron-P]

"I don't think there's a single movie that can survive on box office gross alone; it just doesn't exist anymore," says McCallum. "A theatrical gross can't hack it anymore, and the business is barely surviving right now.

I wonder why, how about the EXTREMELY over-paid actors and actresses and the outrageous income guys like this McCallum get.
Peace Out~

 

[oscar_merkx]

i love the way this is going. Like stated before, we are not seeing the OT until the prequels are finished. sure we see snippets of the OT on dvds. Once the prequels are finished, we will see the super duper all out DVD box to beat all dvds out there.
Perhaps but it will take some heavy punishment from Lord of the Rings first
just my 2 cents

 

[Peter Kim]

Lucas waits until the market has matured to release his movies; Jackson & New Line require a double-dip to get everything.

Ehh,...no offense, but are you serious? Matured? Until geriatric (both format and audience)? And stigmatizing NL as double-dippers? More than Lucas? How many incarnations of the VHS did Lucas release?

 

[Peter Kim]

Literally, our very lives are at stake now.

Jason, doesn't this McCallum statement strike you as ridiculous? You speak of ill attempts to analyze broad industry trends and skewed pictures, yet this doesn't highlight how this guy is possibly out of touch with reality?

 

[Terrell]

Well, there's the question of why Peter Jackson has to be invoked in any conversation involving George Lucas

AGREED!!!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

"I don't think there's a single movie that can survive on box office gross alone; it just doesn't exist anymore,"

Blair Witch?

My Big Fat Greek Wedding?

Spy Kids (hell, anything by Rodriguez).

That's just off the top of my head for recent years. There are TONS of movies that make money at the box office, especially internationally. What a crybaby idiot. This is all about spin, politics, and corporate welfare. It is always sad to hear the bleatings of aging fatcats faced with their own irrelevance.

 

[Peter Kim]

Considering Joseph has met him and you obviously haven't, and know nothing about him as a person, your opinion is completely useless and holds no water whatsoever. Joseph's opinion, on the other hand, does hold up.

Ahh, Terrell. I see you're reintroducing personal attacks. My opinion is useless, yet a guy who has a cursory meeting in public immediately gains an intimate knowledge on how the man operates?

I would suggest you keep you emotional attachment in check.

EDIT: I see that you've edited your original, inflammatory statement. Nevertheless, as I've stated, one meeting does not make a judgment.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I think LOTR is at $300 million now with reshoots etc. But that's only $100M a movie, which is pretty efficient movie making these days when you think of how important the effects are to the pictures--I mean, you have to have four of your main characters look 3'6" tall all the time, and that can't be easy.
But McCallum is clearly nuts. Every time you turn around, box office records are being broken.
And the whining about Episode III---give me a break. George could pay for Episode III out of his own pocket, hell, out of petty cash, make absolutely zero money on it and still not notice the effect on his net worth. In fact, if he had to work with just a $25M budget, maybe he'd make a more creative movie instead of one that's just one explosion and fight scene after another.